Romero v. Katavich et al

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply With a Court Order and Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/3/2012. Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint by April 30, 2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
DANNY ROMERO,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-935-LJO-MJS (PC)

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM

10
v.
11
JOHN N. KATAVICH, et al.
12

(ECF No. 13)
13

Defendants.
PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT BY APRIL 30, 2012

14
15

/

16
Plaintiff Danny Romero (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 14, 2012, and found that it
19
failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
20
complaint on or before March 19, 2012. (ECF No. 13.) March 19, 2012, has passed
21
without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an extension of time
22
to do so.
23
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and
25
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
26
power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose
27
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing
28
-1-

1

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

2

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

3

rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

4

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

6

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

7

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

8

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s February 14, 2012, Order. He will be

9

given one more opportunity, until April 30, 2012, and no later, to file an amended

10

complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

11

a court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in

12

dismissal of this action.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

April 3, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-